Why doesn't Maher just do a show with Harris/one of his allies vs Aslan/Greenwald or the like. Would be amazing.
Religion, what's the point?
- Thread starter TheRedFlag
- Start date
Yes, that would be great. Greenwald and Harris seem to have made something of a truce these past weeks, so that could happen, but I doubt we'll see another Harris/Aslan exchange anytime soon. Apparently Harris cancelled a planned radio appearance when he was told at the last minute that Aslan would be there too, referring to Aslan as a "fraud" and "malicious liar".
She was hardly able to articulate a cohesive sentence, because she was so upset. She actually starts decent; if the students dont want Maher as speaker, there is nothing wrong in kicking him out. Its their decision not his. After that it just gets sad and pretty much every single sentence is nonsense. She is completely losing the plot and doesnt even know what she is arguing against, so she starts to attack him personally. Her complains about Maher generalizing too much are fairly ironic, because she is actually doing it far more.
Maybe its just because I am german, but I find it always oddly funny when people get so emotional in these TV debates. Thats one of the few things I really like about Harris. The lad is always extremely calm and tries to argue about the issue. This women is just getting angry and starts to babble randomly. Sometimes thats entertaining, but debates lose any content.
Maybe its just because I am german, but I find it always oddly funny when people get so emotional in these TV debates. Thats one of the few things I really like about Harris. The lad is always extremely calm and tries to argue about the issue. This women is just getting angry and starts to babble randomly. Sometimes thats entertaining, but debates lose any content.
How do you feel about ethics in gaming journalism?
That would be good, agreed and with a proper amount of time as well. But Greenwald does a lot of journalism too for the Intercept, as well as working on promoting his book for the Snowden leaks.
And I agree with JohnDoe regarding the lady in the above video, there are arguments to be made against Maher, she didn't really make them well. The main crux of it for me is when he asked "is there a gay bar in Gaza" to which the answer is no. We know that many muslim majority countries are backwards with regards to views on women, LGBT rights, blasphemy (and death for apostacy), sharia law etc.
But what astounds me is they don't see the inherent perniciousness of supporting the status quo in Gaza, a hawkish foreign policy (in terms of damaging/destabilising effects to regions in terms of mortality and sociopolitical changes) etc etc. Again lets call out bad ideas where we see there, and argue against them. How many American's would support gun laws, neoconservative foreign policy (that has led to countless deaths), unrestricted capitalism, inaction on climate change and continue to do so. Yet its that primitive religion/culture we can easily blame for their mindset and not be introspective to challenge our own. As an aggregate its "we're better than them". I don't believe in cultural relativism, because we should be able to debate good vs bad ideas but I think Maher is a believer in cultural supremacy. And Islam being the supreme unique threat to our planet/civilisation. He's wrong on both counts for me, not sure if he's "bigoted" though.
A bit of a contradiction he is, I loved the way he is vociferous against conspiracy theorists on climate change, 9/11 (esp among the left) but he's bought into garbage written by the anti-vaccine movement. But I do enjoy his shows, I occasionally find him funny and charismatic in that asshole persona of his. And he does give his guests respect to say what they have to and does engage with them.
I don't want to derail the thread particularly as I am uninformed on gamergate. But I thought it was funny reading that when I also came across this
Genuine question but is there a brand of white libertarian, reddit, gamer, new atheist loving subculture thats become more and more prominent? I do see quite a few on twitter, youtube comments section and they're quite articulate, but a bit unpleasant in their self righteousness. But I'm sure I'm generalising.
Harris interview with Young Turks and yes it's 3 fecking hours long.
Discussed a few pages back. Found it a bit too long. An hour or so would've been perfect.
Ah sorry didn't know. Also your right an hour wouldn't of been prefect(I'm 30mins in and can't see myself lasting)
I am not even sure if there is anything like gaming journalism and I have no interest in it.
The type of person you describe is certainly out there (or at least they act as if they are such a person), but in the echo chamber of the internet its hard to gauge whether its a handful of idiots behind gamergate or a more sizable group of people.
I suspect the reason they identify with the atheists of popular culture is more to do with the bombastic rhetoric of people like Dawkins, rather than because they've meditated and found a new personal spirituality like Sam Harris.
Eboue doesn't use reddit, he's more a 4Chan man
Aslan giving a decent chat about Religion. He's much stronger here than in his handbags encounters with Harris on Twitter.
http://www.c-span.org/video/?319745-1/depth-reza-aslan
http://www.c-span.org/video/?319745-1/depth-reza-aslan
Aslan makes a good point around the 19:30 mark about how Muslims and Christians routinely like to convey that their interpretation of Islam or Christianity is the correct interpretation - but that in fact there is no such thing as a correct interpretation.
How does this jive with what ISIS are doing ? They often get criticized as skewing religion for their own goals, but if there is no such thing as a correct interpretation of any religion then doesn't that suggest any religion can be correctly interpreted for nefarious means ?
Yeah, it's like how you can read anything into art and be right even if everyone's staring at you and thinking 'the feck is this little shit on about?'
Finished watching the Harris interview with Cenk Uygur. And Cenk Uygur is pretty awful in it as is the whole interview.
Yeap it was crap. He spent more than an hour on the same question for starters. Comparing US SC passing laws to Sharia law was also a new low
Aslan was so wrong on the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. Just watched his debate with Harris, where Aslan denies that the Brotherhood is a jihadist organization, and apparently in the years leading up to Morsi's regime he repeatedly said that the Brotherhood's ascent to power was completely unproblematic. “The Muslim Brotherhood will have a significant role to play in post-Mubarak Egypt. And that is good thing.” Woops 
The Brotherhood's credo: “Allah is our objective, the Quran is our law, the Prophet is our leader, Jihad is our way, and death for the sake of Allah is the highest of our aspirations”.
The more I read about him the more sinister he seems. He's said some troubling things about Hamas too Hezbollah too.
The Brotherhood's credo: “Allah is our objective, the Quran is our law, the Prophet is our leader, Jihad is our way, and death for the sake of Allah is the highest of our aspirations”.
The more I read about him the more sinister he seems. He's said some troubling things about Hamas too Hezbollah too.
Aslan is terrible. He might make debates interesting, mainly because he's agressive at times, but that's it.Aslan was so wrong on the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. Just watched his debate with Harris, where Aslan denies that the Brotherhood is a jihadist organization, and apparently in the years leading up to Morsi's regime he repeatedly said that the Brotherhood's ascent to power was completely unproblematic. “The Muslim Brotherhood will have a significant role to play in post-Mubarak Egypt. And that is good thing.” Woops
The Brotherhood's credo: “Allah is our objective, the Quran is our law, the Prophet is our leader, Jihad is our way, and death for the sake of Allah is the highest of our aspirations”.
The more I read about him the more sinister he seems. He's said some troubling things about Hamas too Hezbollah too.
If it wasn't for that stupid journalist, he wouldn't rise to fame rapidly.
He says some kooky things but I like him. Mainly because he points out that a lot of the debates regarding religion from anti-theists involve wikipedia-style rhetoric which they believe in axiomatically.
The heat he is getting from people I find bizarre, these guys hardly get that big a platform, the occasional appearance here and there if they're lucky. Most of the time its a clip they'll find themselves talking about something controversial that gets shared on social media if someone who happens to agree with them shares it.
Whereas Bill Maher, Bill O'Reilly who call Muslims a threat to humanity get their own show and their bullshit is unchallenged. Really really don't see why he's being called "sinister" and "terrible" in the above two posts, he might be someone you disagree with fine but those adjectives I'd really reserve for fascists etc. Maybe its some internet hyperbole thats the norm now but I think a diversity of opinions is a good thing.
Aslan hasn't said anything more troubling about Hamas, Hezbollah than most leftists, it's certainly not full-on George Galloway. But I wouldn't know the specifics of many of those things any way unfortunately to know how much of it is wrong.
I think it's clear he does stick up for religion, in an unconvincing way for me because I'm not a believer in religion, but a lot of what he says goes against the more mainstream Islamic thought (e.g. his works on Jesus). So he isn't an Islamic apologist as such.
The CNN interview he got riled up on was preceded by the headline "IS ISLAM VIOLENT? OR PEACEFUL?", which I know for you guys is fair game but to anyone who knows Muslim its such a ridiculous question. A literally everyone always says Islam escapes criticism, its true that while we don't see the prophet being desecrated/drawn (more out of fear than respect) but there is a barrage of criticism of Islam (the burkha, the "creeping" sharia law) in the media and in sociopolitical discourse.
Yesterday a mosque in California was struck by gunfire, with luckily nobody hurt. And this is in the wider context of islamophobia worldwide and new atheists and their fanbase on the blogosphere is contributing to that hostility. By all means challenge Islam/muslims/religion or bad ideas but how about toning down on that hyperbole? So yeah what was so surprising about the Ben Affleck/Reza Aslan thing was the fact that it was the first time I really saw it challenged vociferously.
By no means am I saying don't criticise Islam or muslims or religion, but I'm glad the debate over "IS ISLAM VIOLENT? OR PEACEFUL?" is getting some Muslim representation. Or rather, people who are trying to keep things in perspective. Mehdi Hasan in the UK (now editor of the Huffington Post UK) incidentally gets so much of the same vitriol than Aslan is getting now for being a similar voice, attacks from both the right and the new atheist left.
The heat he is getting from people I find bizarre, these guys hardly get that big a platform, the occasional appearance here and there if they're lucky. Most of the time its a clip they'll find themselves talking about something controversial that gets shared on social media if someone who happens to agree with them shares it.
Whereas Bill Maher, Bill O'Reilly who call Muslims a threat to humanity get their own show and their bullshit is unchallenged. Really really don't see why he's being called "sinister" and "terrible" in the above two posts, he might be someone you disagree with fine but those adjectives I'd really reserve for fascists etc. Maybe its some internet hyperbole thats the norm now but I think a diversity of opinions is a good thing.
Aslan hasn't said anything more troubling about Hamas, Hezbollah than most leftists, it's certainly not full-on George Galloway. But I wouldn't know the specifics of many of those things any way unfortunately to know how much of it is wrong.
I think it's clear he does stick up for religion, in an unconvincing way for me because I'm not a believer in religion, but a lot of what he says goes against the more mainstream Islamic thought (e.g. his works on Jesus). So he isn't an Islamic apologist as such.
The CNN interview he got riled up on was preceded by the headline "IS ISLAM VIOLENT? OR PEACEFUL?", which I know for you guys is fair game but to anyone who knows Muslim its such a ridiculous question. A literally everyone always says Islam escapes criticism, its true that while we don't see the prophet being desecrated/drawn (more out of fear than respect) but there is a barrage of criticism of Islam (the burkha, the "creeping" sharia law) in the media and in sociopolitical discourse.
Yesterday a mosque in California was struck by gunfire, with luckily nobody hurt. And this is in the wider context of islamophobia worldwide and new atheists and their fanbase on the blogosphere is contributing to that hostility. By all means challenge Islam/muslims/religion or bad ideas but how about toning down on that hyperbole? So yeah what was so surprising about the Ben Affleck/Reza Aslan thing was the fact that it was the first time I really saw it challenged vociferously.
By no means am I saying don't criticise Islam or muslims or religion, but I'm glad the debate over "IS ISLAM VIOLENT? OR PEACEFUL?" is getting some Muslim representation. Or rather, people who are trying to keep things in perspective. Mehdi Hasan in the UK (now editor of the Huffington Post UK) incidentally gets so much of the same vitriol than Aslan is getting now for being a similar voice, attacks from both the right and the new atheist left.
I just don't see any atheists promoting that sort of thing. I do however see plenty of right wing Christians spreading ill will against Muslims.
Yes I do see your point. But for example Anders Breivik did cite the works of alongside the EDL, articles on the Daily Mail and Ayaan Hirsi among many others. He was very much radicalised online (with his belief in the Eurabia conspiracy theories etc). Now of course there is legitimate criticism of Islam and Muslims to be made, and it should be made. But the need to tone down the "clash of civilisations" rhetoric I feel is imperative in societies where Muslims are the most mistrusted minority group.
As Harris said in the Maher/Affleck video, we should be able to criticize bad ideas. If from his perspective, religions and the baggage they bring are bad ideas, then its logical to criticize them. We should not put Harris and his colleagues in the same category as someone like Anjem Choudary, who is a proper hate monger. There should be a clearly delineated difference between a discussion of ideas and the active promotion of violent acts.
Surely it's logical to criticize the bad idea part, not the entire picture that surrounds it. One of the reasons why I think these people like Harris are bell ends is because whenever I see them they aren't criticizing the bad ideas within the subject, but simply criticizing Muslims full stop.
Sorry missed this earlier. Which angle are you taking on this?
Our brain makes a decision before we're aware of it.
He tends to criticize Islam rather than the entirety of the Muslim population, it's this exact misconception that makes him have to say "And I'm not talking about all Muslims here" every time he's having one these debates.
That just proves my point still. Islam is not by default a bad idea. Elements of it are which should be addressed as isolated subjects. Rather than saying 'Islam is bad' why not say 'there's a lot of good in Islam, but this particular issue here, needs discussing.' Everything I've seen of him and people such as Mather has simply been 'Islam is bad, rabble rabble, Islam oppresses their own people, raah, Islam is awful.'
The neuroscience view. To (some) buddhists the notion of "I" is illusory. Its easy to imagine that "I" am a sort of entity sat in my head, using my body like a car, accessing memories like a filing cabinet. However that's a superficial sensation. Your mind has lots of things going on concurrently. Ever walked to the shop thinking completely about something else? Ever suddenly remembered something you had to do? Ever forgotten to set your alarm clock but woke up when you needed to anyway?
As you meditate you sense there are lots of strands to the mind, lots of things going happening at once, semi-autonomously. You can sense them if you let yourself. They're not controlled exclusively by the conscious mind, but they're still happening and they're still part of you. They're as much a part of you as waves are a part of the sea. Indeed what you come to realise when you look long enough is that the conscious "I" sat behind your eyes is the illusory part, because its the part that thinks of itself as somehow separate from everything else.
If science tell us that the decision making part of the brain works in advance of our conscious mind there's no issue with free will because that decision making centre is as much a part of me as anything else, so its still me making the decision. "Me" includes all my physical and mental elements. No experiment suggests the decision making part is being controlled externally, or involves precognition. Merely that the conscious mind doesn't start the thing off.
Any fairy tale which requires your full devotion is a bad idea.
It doesn't have to be controlled externally to negate free will. I'm not going to bother with the rest of the babbling because it's just pointless non-sequiturs.
Would the world be a better place if it did not have religion?
But who's more careful to do exactly that than Harris? He constantly emphasizes that specific doctrines have specific consequences. For instance he rightly points out that Christianity is worse than Islam on stem cell research, because in Islam the soul enters the fetus at day 120 or 180 depending on the hadith, so Islam is compatible with stem cell research.
Though I kind of think Islam itself is a bad idea too, since it's self-evidently not true.
In your opinion. But that's a completely separate argument. The point is, he criticises it as a whole rather than focusing on the particularly bad elements within in. His focus of Islam as a separate force from any other religion shows that he isn't so much discussing the notion of a fairy tale that requires your full devotion but Islam itself. Which then begs the question of why he doesn't focus on the actual bad ideas within Islam, opting instead to criticise Islam as a whole.
Go on.
So you think that religion is a bad idea. Not particularly Islam. The need to point it out as its own separate entity is what confuses me in these debates. If you're making a point about religion then make a point about religion. If you highlight one particular religion but not the others then highlight the bad points within it that are separate to the good, rather than the entire thing as a whole.
Have you ever listened to him talk on this subject? That's precisely what he doesn't do.
Because it's all one big ideology. It's not like, say, political theories which can be altered as you go along and learn more, it's an unalterable ideology which can never be changed. You can't edit the Quran.
His rise to popularity was by criticizing Christianity, so it's not like he's on a single crusade again Islam.
Basically, we just do things. There's no one pulling levers behind the scenes, we're just another animal going along and just doing things. We happen to have a great deal of awareness, which makes us think we're doing these things freely, but we're not, we're just doing them.
I have, and that's what he did. Maybe I just haven't seen enough of him. I tend to judge pretty quickly on subjects such as race and religion to be fair, since I don't like to listen to people displaying intolerance. It's entirely probable that I'm wrong on him.
That seems like a cop out and an excuse for closet racists to attack the whole religion. Not that I'm saying you're one or Harris is one, I'm sure you're not. But what I mean is a defence like that gives licence to those kinds of people that are out there. There are millions of examples of Muslims following the peaceful teachings of the Quran and not oppressing their women or killing infidels. There's no reason why the subjects can't be stripped down to their individual components and discussed rather than attacking the religion as a whole including the actual good that comes of it.